CHAPTER IX. The Disloyal Teaching In Jesuit Colleges.

THE object of the last chapter has been to show, from authority which cannot be disputed, the disloyal character of Roman Catholic teaching. Nothing can excuse it, and nothing can explain it away. But the Jesuits are necessarily and naturally the great exponents of this teaching, hence we now turn to their authorised books of theology. It was shown, exclusively on Roman Catholic authority, in the preceding chapter, that Roman Catholics are obliged to be disloyal. The government of the country in which they live may, or may not, hold the same opinions as to what is best for the prosperity and peace of their native land, as the pope. But whatever may be the opinions of those who rule or decide public affairs, the opinion of the pope must be considered first, and must be obeyed first.

Rome’s Idea of Parental Rights.

Many instances might be given here of the interference of the popes in politics, but one must suffice. It is chosen merely because it shows in what details this ecclesiastical pressure makes itself felt.

In the Morning Post, August 15th, 1893, we read that the Marquis de Breteuil resigned his seat in the Chamber, and in a letter of explanation addressed to his constituency at Argelés, refers to the profound perturbation caused in the Conservative ranks by the recent action of the Vatican in regard to the Republic, and “expresses his conviction and that of his constituents, that a republican form of government is synonymous with the persecution and destruction of faith.

Now the French Conservative party have always been the most devoted Catholics, yet at one word the Pope compels them to abandon the policy they have pursued for years, and they are obliged to abandon it.

The case of Prince Boris is contemporary history. This case of interference with parental rights is noteworthy, because we hear so much from Romanists in England of these rights as a solemn duty not to be interfered with, no doubt to impress the people of England by whom they are specially respected. But what of parental rights in Bulgaria? What, indeed, it may be asked, of national rights? But what makes this case especially oppressive and high handed, is the fact that while Rome might denounce such a proceeding, if the transfer of faith were made to what she would term an heretical church, Rome actually acknowledges the rights of the Greek Church to a valid priesthood and lawful sacraments. However, whenever Rome dilates on parental rights, she always means her own rights, for she recognises no others.

The teaching of the Jesuit must, as we have said elsewhere, be always the same as the teaching of the Church. The Jesuit therefore is obliged, whether he will or not, to teach this disloyalty. But the great evil is, that the Jesuit always practises disloyalty, and has opportunities which other priests and teachers have not, of enforcing his dangerous doctrines.

The Jesuit teaches them in his schools, he teaches them in his colleges, he teaches them to his penitents, not the least important part of his. work. Further, he publishes books in this country which teach this disloyalty, and then he comes before a too confiding public and declares that he is a devoted Englishman, and would almost lay down his life in the service of his Queen and country. He plots treason for the greater honour and glory of God, and he proclaims himself honest, while he is practising deceit of the worst kind. And all this is done in the sacred name of religion.

Are Heretics to be Tolerated.

The Jesuits have their own printing press, their own compositors, their own workmen. They can print what they please, and do what they please, . because this is a free country. But surely it is carrying liberty rather far to allow such license for such a purpose.

One of the works recently published by the Jesuits is called “ Aquinas Ethicus,” and consists of extracts from the “Summa Theologica” of St. Thomas Aquinas. The translator is the Rev. Joseph Rickaby, S.J., we give the following quotation from this work from vol. i., pp. 332, 333—

“Ave Heretics to be tolerated? With regard to heretics, two elements are to be considered, one element on their side, and the other on the part of the Church. On their side is the sin whereby they have deserved, not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be banished from the world by Death. For it is a much heavier offence to corrupt the faith, whereby the life of the soul is sustained, than to tamper with the coinage, which is an aid to temporal life. Hence if coiners or other malefactors are at once handed over by secular princes to a just death, much more may heretics. Immediately they are convicted of heresy, be not only excommunicated, but also justly done (sic) to DIE. But on the part of the Church is mercy in view of the conversion of them that err, and therefore she does not condemn at once, but after the first and second admonition, as the Apostle teaches (Titus iii, 10). After that, however, if the man is still found pertinacious (perversely persistent), the Church having no hope of his conversion, provides for the safety of others, cutting him off from the Church by sentence of excommunication, and further, she leaves him to the secular power TO BE EXTERMINATED FROM THE WORLD BY DEATH.”

He states that as things are, it is a question whether. “it would be prudent in her (the Church) nowadays to visit heresy with all the ancient penalties,” even if “she had might on her side,” yet he impresses on his readers the fact that the Church of Rome “still insists on her right to punish by corporal inflictions.”

Certainly it cannot now be said that English Jesuits have deceived the English people. If our immediate descendants are “done to die,” either by civil war, stirred up by the Jesuits to win England for Rome, or in the horrors of the Inquisition, presided over by priests as it always has been, they can justly say, “We told you this, why did you add to our power every day socially and politically, until we were able to crush you?”

Jesuit Contempt for Civil Law.

This is also the doctrine taught and approved by the present Pope, who is credited with being a Liberal.

When it is remembered that every one of the Popish plots for the deposition of English sovereigns were of Jesuit origin, it is time to ask if such men should be encouraged and supported in this country. When popes, cardinals, and bishops have feared their power, and tried often and vainly to control them, there is surely a justification for fear of the secret work, which even now they may be plotting in England.

Indeed Romanists seem to take a pride in declaring their contempt for the laws of the country, which has helped and sheltered them when they have been restrained and banished from countries once exclusively Roman Catholic. The following extracts from Roman Catholic papers, supported and authorised by the Church, will show that the above statement is not mere assertion —

“Upon the passing of the 14th and 15th Vic. cap. 60, A.D. 1851, forbidding the assumption of R. C. Ecclesiastical Territorial Titles within the United Kingdom—an assumption forbidden, also, by the 24th Sectior of of Geo. IV. c. 7—the R. C. leading Paper, the Tablet, of July 26th 1851, p. 478, said: —

“Neither in England nor in Ireland will the Catholics obey the law of Parliament. They have before them two things called law, which contradict each other. Both cannot be obeyed—one of them is the Law of God, the other is not law at all. It pretends to be an Act of Parliament, but in the direction of legislation it has no more value than a solemn enactment that the moon is made of green cheese. The law of God, that is the Popes command. ”—“ If carried into effect the Parliamentary lie will be treated as all honest men treat a lie, that is rigorously disobeyed—will be spit upon and trampled under foot.”

The utter contempt shown by English Romanists of the laws of their country is further aptly illustrated by the Weekly Register, another R. C. Paper, of June 21st, 1868. This Paper wrote: —

“It [the Ecclesiastical Titles Act then in force] is broken every day in the year. It has been broken without hesitation or intermission ever since it received the Royal assent, and it will be broken without hesitation every time that its infraction becomes necessary, so long as it defiles the Statute book.”

The Weekly Register makes no secret of the intentions of those it represents, and says plainly — “If we like the laws, we obey them, if not, we defy them.”* .

* In the United States the Jesuits are still more active, and all public organisations are at their mercy. Mgr. Satolli, the Apostolic Delegate in the United States, has promulgated an edict of the Pope, placing under the ban of the Church, as secret societies, the Odd Fellows, the Knights of Pythias, and the Sons of Temperance. December 21st, 1894.

Jesuit Scheme for Romanising England.

Amongst other works published openly by the Jesuits, there is a magazine called the Month. The name was chosen, we believe, so that Protestants might not suspect that the serial was Roman Catholic. The venture at first promised failure, but when it was taken in hand by the Jesuits it proved a brilliant success. A remarkable article was published in this magazine in October, 1889. It is headed “A Jesuit Scheme for the Reformation of England.” The word “Reformation” is, we suspect, purposely misleading, it should be “A Jesuit Scheme for the Romanising of England.” When it is added that this scheme originated with, and was arranged by Parsons, the value of the title will be better understood. We may do the Jesuits the justice to say that they never put their personal safety in competition with the success of their work. When therefore the Jesuit who writes on this subject declares that the scheme was not published for some time after it was written, because it was not “safe” to do so, we know that he refers to the necessity for concealing the conspiracy, not to the security of the conspirators.

Probably it is thought quite safe to publish the “scheme” now the people of England have been hypnotised into acquiescence with whatever Rome pleases to do. Parsons was a pervert, and had been a fellow of Baliol College, Oxford. Archbishop Abbot says he was expelled for bad conduct and peculation (embezzlement), the Jesuits say that he abandoned his fellowship because he desired to become a Romanist. Perhaps one statement is not irreconcilable with the other. His treatise was published in London with a biographical notice by the Rev. Edward Gee, the rector of a Protestant church in London in 1690. Mr. Gee had a bad opinion of Parsons, and had special opportunities for forming it. Parsons’ book is at all events another proof that the Jesuits were the active partners in every effort to overthrow the Protestant government in England. His Protestant biographer says that he was “fierce, turbulent, and bold.”

Priests Wives sent out of Sight.

Parsons’ Roman Catholic editor says, that he had to account for the rapid return of the people of England to the Protestant religion after the death of Mary, and gives his reasons. He says: — .

“Many priests that had fallen and married in King Edwards days were admitted presently to the altar without other satisfaction than only to send their wives out of men’s sight, and of some it is thought they did not so much as confess themselves before they said Mass again. Others that had preached against Catholics were admitted presently to preach for them, and others that had been visitors and commissioners against us were made commissioners against the Protestants, and in this Queen’s time were commissioners again of the other side against ours, so as the matter went as a stage play, where men do change their persons and parts without changing their minds or affection.”

But Romanists in general, and the Jesuits in particular, have always a sharp eye on temporal affairs, and the weakness or indifference of Protestants too often affords them ample ground for concluding that if they ask with sufficient importunity they will be sure to receive.

It grieved the heart of the Jesuit, that even Roman Catholics should possess the lands which the Church had sagaciously grasped in preceding reigns, and he blames the Church for allowing these lands to return to their original Catholic owners even by the Papal permission.

There can be no doubt that Rome has full details of all the estates which she claims to be the property of her Church in the United Kingdom, and when she has secured the spoils of Ireland, she will turn her attention to England and Scotland, beginning, no doubt with the plea of requiring funds for “educational purposes.” Parsons says— “Now, in Queen Mary’s reign, all possessors of Church lands had, with a few exceptions, retained them. Some had applied to Rome for a Bull of toleration, others had never taken the trouble to do so.” Many of the applicants, he tells us, had sent false information as the ground of their petition, and yet thought themselves safe in conscience. “Yea, he was taken for a great Catholic who would so much as ask for a Bull.” This accounts, in his opinion, for the transitory character of the change, and “for the fact of the second scourge of heresy having proved so sharp and heavy.”

From all this it is evident that the greatest crimes in the eyes of the Jesuits were the honest marriage of a priest, and the holding of money or land which the Church claimed as her own.

The Jesuit writer in the Month make several remarks which are noteworthy. He expresses his “no small astonishment ” that so many of Father Parsons’ plans and recommendations have been already carried out in England. Whether his “surprise ” is real or assumed, the fact can be easily accounted for. For some years the Jesuits have had their well trained pupils in every department of state, in the army, in the navy, in Parliament, on the judicial bench, and it can scarcely be a matter of surprise that they have carried out the teaching of their masters.

How Rome ts to Govern England.

The foundation stone was to be the placing of a “Catholic” monarch on the throne. This the Jesuit writer appears to consider quite possible at the present day. He says:— “Father Parsons’ object in his book, however, is not to criticise the past, but to provide such plans for the future that Catholics may avail themselves of them if the occasion offers of restoring the [Roman Catholic] Church in England.” No doubt the “occasion” will be made, and probably it is already in the process of making — “Father Parsons is constructive throughout, and his constructive scheme is not only that of a good and prudent man, but of one who knows by experience the nature of the evils to be met and the best remedies for them. He is very practical, and sometimes enters into details into which we shall not attempt to follow him. But the main features of his proposal are of permanent interest, not merely as an historical study, but as affording some valuable suggestions for the guidance of Catholics, even in circumstances very different from those which the headstrong House of Stuart turned to such ill account.”

Having had access to the original, we note two special points which the Jesuit writer in the Month has thought it prudent to pass by, at least. for the present. Father Parsons insists on securing a Roman Catholic king, and still more on securing a Roman Catholic Parliament and a Roman Catholic succession. As far as Ireland is concerned his plans for a Roman Catholic Parliament are already carried out, as the bishops either nominate, or approve, the candidates for the greater part of Ireland, and “no others need apply.” Parsons say “that the king can in no wise be better able to satisfy his duty to God, and to assure his own possession and estate, than by making account that the security of himself, his crown, and successor dependeth principally on the assurance and good establishment of the Catholic religion within his kingdom.” For this purpose he must not only give “singular care for restoring perfectly the Catholic religion in the realm,” but must “uphold and maintain the same, and provide for the perpetuation thereof,” and to insure this, he must “first of all assure the succession of the crown by good provision of laws, and in such manner link the state of Catholic religion and succession together, as the one may depend and be the assurance of the other.”

Upon the important question of the constitution of Parliament, Father Parsons gives the most explicit instructions in his “memorial.” The higher house is to be strengthened by the admission thereto of “the principal men of the religious orders,” a device, no doubt, for placing that august body under the control of the Jesuits.

A Jesuit on Law Making.

He then proposes that “for choosing knights of the shire and burgesses, a more perfect and exact order should be set down, and less subject to partiality and corruption, and that information should be taken of their names and religion.” In the election of their representatives, Father Parsons recommends that, for a time at least, power should be given to the bishop of the diocese, “to judge of their virtue and forwardness in religion and to confirm their election, or to have a negative voice, when cause should. be offered. This is not all, for this Jesuit adds, that these representatives shall be required “to make public profession of their faith before their election could be admitted.”

He makes provision for instituting an inquiry as to all the rights and privileges taken from Parliament since the entrance of heresy, which are to be restored by the Crown, and then he directs that “every man be sworn to defend the Catholic Roman faith, and, moreover, that it be made treason forever for any man to propose anything for change thereof or for the introduction of heresy.” When Rome acts thus in her own interests it is all right, but if Protestants protect themselves in a similar manner it is bigotry and illiberality.

Father Parsons then furnishes instructions for the making of laws by the “Catholic Parliament,” which he would establish, and first he proposes: “To abrogate and revoke all laws, whatsoever have been made at any time, or by any prince or Parliament, directly or indirectly, in prejudice of the Catholic Roman religion, and to restore and put in full authority again all old laws that ever were in use in England, in favour of the same, and against heresies and heretics.”

Here is Father Parsons’ idea of toleration — “To be provided that this toleration be only with such as live quietly, and are desirous to be informed of the truth, and do not teach, and preach, or seek to infect others.”

“For willful apostates, or malicious persecutors, or obstinate perverters of others, how they may be dealt withal,” this distinguished Jesuit states, “it belongeth not to a man of my vocation to suggest, but rather to commend their state to Almighty God, and their treaty to the wisdom of such as shall be in authority in the commonwealth at that day, admonishing them only, that as God doth not govern the whole monarchy but by rewards and chastisements, and that as He hath had a sweet hand to cherish the well affected, so hath He a strong arm to bind the boisterous, stubborn and rebellious, even so the very like and same must be the proceeding of a perfect Catholic prince and commonwealth, and the nearer it goes to the imitation of Gods government in this and all other points the better, and more exact, and more durable it is, and will be ever.” The astute Jesuit suggests a military order for suppressing heretics. Are the “Ransomers” the outcome of this suggestion?

The Origin of the Ransomers.

The “Council of the Reformation” was also to consider how some new Order of Knights, similar to the “Order of the Knights of St. John of Malta,” might be erected in the realm, for the exercise of the young gentlemen and nobility, whose rule should be “to fight against Heretics in whatever country they should be employed,” and Father Parsons adds, that “whereas their ancestors, to fight against infidels, less dangerous and odious to God than these Heretics, undertook long and perilous journeys into Asia and other countries,” so the members of this new order “ should show their valour against Heretics and enemies of God and His church, of these our days, as well at home among us, as also in divers kingdoms round about us.”

Care was also to be taken for the expurgation of all Heretical books. Public and private libraries are to be searched and examined for books, also all book binders, stationers, and booksellers’ shops, and all Heretical books and pamphlets were utterly to be removed, burnt, suppressed, and severe order and punishment appointed for such as shall conceal these kind of writings.”

Successive Protestant Governments in this country have been wearied with applications, and have used their best endeavours to relieve Roman Catholics from every possible religious or legal disability, but we learn from this “memorial” of Father Parsons, that when the Roman Catholic power is restored, it is to be considered “whether it shall be fit to disable some great and able heretics and their posterity— especially if they have been principal authors in the, overthrowing of the Catholic religion—not only from priesthood and ecclesiastical dignities, but also from other honours and preferments temporal of the commonwealth, for warning and deterring of others.”

Father Parsons also suggested in this memorial that in order to put the Commonwealth in joint again, it would be desirable to appoint a Council of Reformation.

This “Council of the Reformation” was to consist of certain prudent and zealous men put in authority by the prince and Parliament and the Pope’s Holiness, and, for that the name of Inquisition may be somewhat odious and offensive at the beginning. Father Parsons proposes that the name given to these men should be, “the Council of the Reformation.”

The Inquisition Necessary.

But it is advised “that before this ‘Council’ make an end of their office, when they shall have settled and secured the state of Catholic religion, it would be very much necessary that they should leave some good and sound manner of Inquisition established for the conservation. of that which they have planted, that perhaps it would be best to spare the name of Inquisition, at the first beginning, which, in so new and green a state of religion as ours must needs be, after so many years of heresy, may chance offend and exasperate more than do good. But afterwards it will be necessary to bring it in, either by that or some other name, as shall be thought most convenient at the time for that, without this care, all will slide down and fall again.”

The memorial proceeds to the consideration of “the form and manner of Inquisition,” which it will be desirable to bring into this kingdom. The merits of the respective Inquisitions set up in Spain, Italy, and Rome are severally discussed, and it is suggested that possibly “a mixture of all will not be amiss for England when the day shall come.” Nevertheless special commendation is given to the “diligent and exact manner of proceeding ” that then prevailed in Spain, as being “so necessary as without this, no matter of moment can be expected.” It is also stated that “some high council of delegates from his holiness must reside in the court, as in Spain is used, or else all will languish.” “The prisons of the Inquisition are also to be separated from the concourse of the people,” and “some sharp execution of justice is to be made upon the obstinate and remediless.”

We are hearing a great deal at the present day of the “liberality” which we ought to extend to our “Catholic brethren.” It would be well if we knew a little more of the kind of “liberality” which they propose to extend to us as soon as they have power. Every concession to Catholics, whether that concession be small or great, is hastening the day when they can carry out the plan of which the Jesuits at the present day have so boldly and openly approved. Let us hear no more then of the Jesuits as the benefactors of mankind, as amiable gentlemen who merit our consideration. Let it be noted that we make no doubtful or calumnious charge against them. What we have advanced are stern facts, and facts which should sink deep into the heart of every reader. Nor can the matter be referred to the past. Romanists are very anxious to persuade us that the age of persecution and intolerance has passed.

It has not passed, and those who say this know — that well. Here is the proof that Rome is as intolerant, as narrow, as cruel, and as determined to exterminate Englishmen, we do not even use the word Protestants, as ever she was in the darkest ages of her dark career, if they do not accept her creed.

The Jesuits must know that they have hope of success or they would never have made their plans public. It was a daring act, but they are daring men.

The Jesuits have not Changed.

I use no harsh or bitter language about them. I have known Jesuits in my Roman Catholic days to whom I was indebted for many a kindness, men who I believe would have shrunk from the cruelties which are proposed in this vile plot on English liberties, religious, social, and political. The danger is that those who may have known such men should suppose that they are real representatives of the order, or that they would dare to be anything else but cruel if they were commanded to be cruel. These men, if ordered by the church or by their ecclesiastical superiors, would not hesitate for one moment to torture their nearest and dearest relatives, or bring them to the stake, such is the power of religious fanaticism. Once more let it be said, the fact is there, and there is no evading it. So lately as the year 1889, the Jesuit Editors of the Jesuit representative magazine, published such parts of Parsons’ scheme as they dare, and approved what they were too prudent to publish in these words: “his scheme is not only that of a good and prudent man, but of one who knows by experience the nature of the evils to be met, and the best remedies for them. The main features of his proposal are of permanent interest, not merely as a historical study, but as affording some valuable suggestions for the guidance of Catholics, even in circumstances very different from those which the headstrong house of Stuart turned to such ill account.” This is plain speaking, and the Jesuits mean what they say.

We now proceed to show from historical evidence that the Jesuits claimed for themselves the power of life and death.

MURDER OF JESUITS.

We give the following extracts from Griesinger’s “History of the Jesuits” —

Page 649. “In the underground vault in the Munich Jesuit College, eleven human skeletons, hung in chains, were found which were all dressed in Jesuit clothing, and had apparently fallen victims to the extreme justice of the Order.

“The commissary had to be satisfied with the declaration of the rector, that these were eleven brethren who had lost their reason.”

This was on the suppression of the Order in 1773, in the time of Joseph II. of Austria.

At the college of Ingolstadt were found things “which strongly compromised the Order of Jesus, as, for example, a crucifix, which, when it was kissed, the person kissing it was killed by a dagger springing out. Also, an executioners sword, with the remarkable inscription, Hoc ferrum centum et decem reis (regibus) capita demessait.” (Latin for, “With this iron he cut off the heads of one hundred and ten criminals (kings).”)

JARRIDGE’S CASE—GRIESINGER.

Page 498. “In 1648, Jarridge, a professed Jesuit of the four vows, escaped from La Rochelle to Leyden in Holland.

“At Leyden he published a book called ‘The Jesuits on the Scaffold,’ owing to the high crimes perpetuated by them in the province of Guyenne.”

Jesuit Moral Theology—Justification of Murder.

Page 501. “Ponthélier, a Jesuit, well disguised, was sent to Leyden, where Jarridge was, they were known to have met, but he suddenly disappeared, and so did Panthélier, and no researches, officially instituted, ever cleared the matter.

In 1651 the Order published Jarridge’s so called Recantation, but his exposure of the Order and the recantation are not in the same style or by the same hand, which is quite evident, and the Recantation is a palpable forgery.”

I have examined both books in the British Museum.

Page 502. “There was an exposure of the Order in 1645, evidently written by a member, called ‘The Monarchy of Solipsen,’ by L. C. Europeeus. The Jesuits never discovered the author, it was first published in Venice.”

TEACHING ON MURDER—GRIESINGER.

Page 488. “Escobar, 1655, in his Moral Theology teaches, ‘That it is absolutely allowable to kill a man whenever the general welfare or proper security demands it.’”

“To defend his life or his honour, a son may murder his father, a monk his abbot, and a subject his prince.” –HERMAN BUSENBAUM.

Father Francis Laing, (Disp. 36, Num. 148.) “It is an established truth, that ecclesiastics must save their honour and consideration at any price, even at that of the life of the person insulting them. This is especially the case when the loss of their honour would tend to the disgrace of the whole order.”

Father Henriques Summa Theologiae Moralis (Venic. 1600). “If an ecclesiastic murder the husband of a woman with whom he is caught in adultery, he is quite justified in doing so.”

Benedict Slattle, vol. 1, p. 337, of his “Moral Philosophy.” “A real injury, bringing disgrace, may be retaliated by the murder of the insulter.”

THE SECRET— GRIESINGER.

Page 474. “Bishop Palifox wrote to Innocent X. in 1649.

“But the Jesuits alone, shroud themselves intentionally in a darkness, which the laity are completely forbidden to penetrate, and the veil is not even uplifted to many of the members. There are among them a large number who have taken merely three vows, but not the fourth, and who are in consequence, not at all, or at any rate, not properly, instructed regarding the true principles, institutions and liberties of the order, this secret, on the other hand, is entrusted, as is known to His Holiness, to only a small number, and whatever is especially important is known only to the Superior and the General.”

The Blessing of Secret Assassins.

The Duke de St. Simon in his memoirs, one hundred and fifty years later, says the same thing.

But there is another class book which needs careful attention. This work is a translation from the German of Dr. Joseph Hergenrother. In this work, one of no small Roman Catholic importance, the doctrine of the lawfulness, or rather the duty of killing heretics, and deposing heretical sovereigns is fully defended and carefully taught. And this is done openly in the 19th century. Much capital is made in this book of certain expressions and acts of Protestants at the time of the Reformation, who declared it lawful for their brethren to fight for their religion, and to depose in open war those kings or princes who were persecuting Protestants. But surely this is some thing very different from the blessing of secret assassins by the head of the Romish Church, and the fulmination of spiritual cursings on the head of a lawful sovereign, merely because that sovereign was a Protestant.

It would occupy more space than can be given to this matter here to go fully into the teaching of this book. But in it the doctrine of the Romish Church, that it is a duty to exterminate heretics is fully taught and earnestly defended. The Pope’s plans for, the assassination of Queen Elizabeth are justified, indeed, his Bull of excommunication of that sovereign placed her at the mercy of any one who pleased to kill her, and who could plead the Popes authority for so doing. Many other cases are brought forward for justification, in which the Popes at various times exercised what they are pleased to call their spiritual rights to incite to the murder of princes and people, who would not submit to their rule. Some of these Popes were men of infamous character, but they were infallible all the same.

And this doctrine 1s fully approved at the present day by the present Pope, for in his Encyclical on Scholastic Philosophy, Leo XIII. ordered his ecclesiastics throughout the world as follows —“ Let the teachers whom you shall discreetly choose make it their aim to instill the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas into the minds of their scholars, and to set in a clear light his solidity and excellence above all other teachers.”

In the “Relations of the Church to Society,” by the late Father O’Reilly, S.J., with preface by Matthew Russell, S.J., the author teaches that “A Protestant clergyman or a Protestant layman as effectually introduces the child whom he validly baptizes into the Catholic Church as the Pope could, and into no other,” and to conclude what has been said concerning persons subject to the Church’s laws, I may add, though the statement seems rather superfluous, that no temporal dignity, however exalted, exempts from the obligation of obedience to them. A King, as such, has no prerogative of spiritual independence, anymore than he has of spiritual authority.”

Kings have no Rights save what Rome Allows.

The object of this statement may not he immediately apparent to those who are not familiar with Roman Catholic teaching. It is none the less important. Rome claims every lawfully baptized person as her own, no matter how strongly the person may object to this appropriation: Thus on her theory of church government she claims the right to dispose of that persons body and soul at her pleasure. She claims the right to put him to death in this world and to damn him eternally in the next, as she so pleases, no matter whether he has ever. given his consent to her usurpation of his immortal soul or not. Further, the delicately conveyed hint about royalty being on the same level with others is not without its intention also. It simply means that Leo XIII. has the same right to depose or sanction the assassination of Queen Victoria, as his infallible predecessor Pius V. had to excommunicate and, as far as his power could go, to depose Queen Elizabeth.

One fact is worth a thousand assertions, and the fact that the Jesuits and indeed all Roman Catholic professors are teaching today in England this horrible doctrine as being the very truth of God, ought not to be overlooked by those who care even for the material prosperity of their country.*

* We have been informed that a very large sum of money was given to the Jesuit fathers to purchase all that was necessary for an immense printing concern. They are by no means content with leaflets or pamphlets, but are issuing large volumes, and having them placed in public libraries. May we not hope that some Protestants will have the same zeal for the circulation of books which may counteract this danger?

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: